I believe a very strong case can be made for the McCanns and their friends knowing much more than they are admitting to about Madeleines' disappearance simply by looking at the discrepancies within their statements. I am aware that there are always discrepancies in witness statements but what strikes me about this case is the sheer number within the those of a very small group of friends. The remembering of details weeks, if not months, after the event and the way the group latterly 'collectively' remember incidents also seems very suspicious.

I don't know if this has been done before but I think it would be interesting to compile a list of these discrepancies but only from either the witness statements themselves or other material in the files. If you also have a theory why a certain discrepancy was advanced, so much the better. By concentrating exclusively on this evidence and cutting out tabloid rumour and innuendo perhaps we can build a fuller picture of what exactly the McCanns and their friends didn't want us to know. I'll start off with the two that I found most illuminating .

1. Gerry saying in his statement of 4th May that both he and Kate had both used their keys to unlock a locked front door to do their checks however by his May 10th statement he had changed this and stated that he had accessed the apartment for his check through the patio doors and was not sure whether the front door was locked.

I feel the first statement was to direct the listener to believe that the abductor got into the apartment through the window. Of course by the 10th of May the police knew this was impossible but as Gerry had claimed they could see the patio door from the Tapas bar the abductor couldn't have got in or out that way either without the group having seen them, therefore another access and exit option would have to be found so et viola the door suddenly unlocks.

2. Gerry placing himself on a different side of the road than Jane or Jez Wilkins claimed when Jane spotted the alleged abductor.

I feel this was to explain why Gerry or indeed Jez didn't see either Jane or the abductor. Even Gerry appreciated that it was impossible for Jane to pass him on the same narrow street without him seeing her and he couldn't admit to seeing her as he knew Jez would contradict him.

Faithlilly wrote:I believe a very strong case can be made for the McCanns and their friends knowing much more than they are admitting to about Madeleines' disappearance simply by looking at the discrepancies within their statements. I am aware that there are always discrepancies in witness statements but what strikes me about this case is the sheer number within the those of a very small group of friends. The remembering of details weeks, if not months, after the event and the way the group latterly 'collectively' remember incidents also seems very suspicious.

I don't know if this has been done before but I think it would be interesting to compile a list of these discrepancies but only from either the witness statements themselves or other material in the files. If you also have a theory why a certain discrepancy was advanced, so much the better. By concentrating exclusively on this evidence and cutting out tabloid rumour and innuendo perhaps we can build a fuller picture of what exactly the McCanns and their friends didn't want us to know. I'll start off with the two that I found most illuminating .

1. Gerry saying in his statement of 4th May that both he and Kate had both used their keys to unlock a locked front door to do their checks however by his May 10th statement he had changed this and stated that he had accessed the apartment for his check through the patio doors and was not sure whether the front door was locked.

I feel the first statement was to direct the listener to believe that the abductor got into the apartment through the window. Of course by the 10th of May the police knew this was impossible but as Gerry had claimed they could see the patio door from the Tapas bar the abductor couldn't have got in or out that way either without the group having seen them, therefore another access and exit option would have to be found so et viola the door suddenly unlocks.

2. Gerry placing himself on a different side of the road than Jane or Jez Wilkins claimed when Jane spotted the alleged abductor.

I feel this was to explain why Gerry or indeed Jez didn't see either Jane or the abductor. Even Gerry appreciated that it was impossible for Jane to pass him on the same narrow street without him seeing her and he couldn't admit to seeing her as he knew Jez would contradict him.

posters on various forums have talked about the fact the mccanns were only really close to the paynes;the others were more friends of friends.so why in gods name would they lie for them???i know if i,or anybody i know went on holiday with a group of acquaintences and friends we wouldnt bl**dy start pretending we thought a child had been abducted if we didnt think it to be true!people you hardly know wouldnt cover for you.i believe this horrible case has been complicated by too many theories-and sometimes the obvious is the truth-poor madeleine was abducted.

Until we know exactly what happened that night we have can but guess why any of the group lied but lie they did and it's all detailed in the files.

Last edited by Faithlilly on Fri 4 Sep - 18:21; edited 1 time in total

yes but from very early on the media stated that all the couples had left their children to go for a meal and nothing was done about that fact regarding the pj.i also dont understand why jane tanner would pretend to have seen a man carrying a little child? she stated that out of the tapas lot-she was least friendly with gerry and knew kate through friends;so why would she lie?i believe her to be tellindg the truth.

The lies started very early, in fact from the first phonecalls to family and friends. At that point the group had no idea what action the PJ was likely to take and by the time they did it was too late, they had already, by their own words, tied themselves into a course of action that they could not escape without damaging their own families and livelihoods.

As to Jane Tanner being the least friendly with Kate and Gerry, who were we told this by..... Jane herself and if you were of a suspicious mind you may feel that she said that simply to persuade people that she was not close enough to the two to lie for them and therefore giving her sighting a certain sense of distance from the main protagonists.

perhaps some of our learned friends could explain why Madeleine is referred to in the Police Statements in the past tense - was not is - by some of the tapas and co. If she is still alive as they want us to believe they would be saying she is and not she was.

In my line of work I am often called upon to make investigations into failures within the organization. I have never read a set of statements that made sense when read together (except where the statements were fabricated as part of a cover up.)

Research into sensory reception, short term memory and long term memory show that people believe their past experiences to be very different to what actually happened. There are many psychological forces that cause misrembering and many physiological events that change the very perceptions on which they are based.

Witness statements are taken under very artificial conditions and often the interviewer causes changes in the false memories of the subject.

The whole area is littered with major problems.

I do wish people would stop bandying the accusation of "lying" about when what is being descibed is statements at variance with the other 'facts' in the case and other statements. Making an incorrect ststement is not necessarily lying. In my experience almost all witnesses to an event end up contradicting themselves in some matters when interviewed at separate times and under different conditions. It is not possible to separate easily purposeful lies from innocent errors.

''The deponent also wishes to mention that at around 3 a.m. Madeleineís parents asked for the presence of a priest on location. They didnít explain the reason why they wanted a priest, but the deponent found the fact strange as there were no indications that the little girl was dead , and thatís the circumstance under which usually the presence of a priest is requested.''

SelectedSeconds wrote:It's called 'finding religion when in a bad place', it happens to lots of people.

I frankly find it amusing that a Portuguese person, from a devoutly Catholic country, would only associate the presence of a priest with death.

I'm an atheist, and even I wouldn't do that.

I am PT, i am religious (catholic), that time i belived on McCanns inocence and when i heard that on TV or read on newspapers i thought strange. Why a priest? they need to search, they need the police and they need to pray while they are searching, but why they need to speak with the priest now?????? these were my thoughts

pm

Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 4300Age : 45Location : Cave of the MOUNTAIN OF THE 3RD WORLD - PORTUGAL - St Gerald i am sending your goats to you againWarning :

fizzbomb200 wrote:But i dont think urgently requesting a Priest at Midnight , would get many Hotel staff thinking it was for a Birthday Party .context dear snoop

well that wasn't the point.... the point was that priests/prayers are not associated only with death.

and the context was their daughter was missing. yet we are supposed to be surprised that they might want religious comfort?

It does seems a tad strange when even Kates' mum said they weren't very religious.

There was also a specialist , official in Child Protection who volunteered her services that night an was shown the door .but more telling is the Priest in question , has bugged off , sighting he was betrayed by the McCann .

The McCanns will be particularly disappointed at reports that Jose Manuel Pacheco, the Roman Catholic priest who befriended them, has ordered every trace of the Madeleine appeal removed from his church of Our Lady of the Light.

The tiny white-washed building became a focal point of the Find Madeleine campaign, and was later searched by police looking for the body. But Friends of Fr Pacheco said he could no longer bear to discuss the case.

"Even when his friends broach the subject he immediately changes it," said one. He says it is an extremely unpleasant situation and the McCann family only ever brought him problems. He even told one friend they ruined his life. There are two completely different Pachecos, the one before the McCanns and this shell of a man after the McCanns. He is a nervous wreck."

sorry to put a spanner in the spokes -gerry never said the front door was unlocked -they added the fact that the patio door was unlocked -no mention anywhere of main front door being left unlocked-whole thread on false premise-happy to be corrected

Cherry wrote:I think if anyone looks at all the interviews they have done, plus read all the statements there is no way their contradictions could be described as innocent imo.

Surely not Cherry, after all the jemmied shutters, were magiced back together, so the story changed to the unlocked door, it is a mistake we all make, just like all Brits leave their children alone every night (The world according to Mitchell)